Study

The effects of early season and late season prescribed fires on small mammals in a Sierra Nevada mixed conifer forest

  • Published source details Monroe M.E. & Converse S.J. (2006) The effects of early season and late season prescribed fires on small mammals in a Sierra Nevada mixed conifer forest. Forest Ecology and Management, 236, 229-240.

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Burn at specific time of year

Action Link
Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

Use prescribed burning

Action Link
Terrestrial Mammal Conservation
  1. Burn at specific time of year

    A replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after study in 2001–2004 of a coniferous woodland in California, USA (Monroe & Converse 2006) found that carrying out prescribed burns in autumn did not increase small mammal abundances or biomass relative to burning in summer. Timing of burning did not significantly affect abundances of deer mice Peromyscus maniculatus or lodgepole chipmunks Neotamias speciosus or overall small mammal biomass (results presented as model outputs). Nine plots, 15–20 ha in area, were studied. Three were burned between 28 September and 28 October 2001 and three were burned on 20 or 27 June 2002. Three plots were not burned. Treatments were allocated randomly to plots. Small mammals were sampled by live-trapping over eight consecutive nights and days each year. Sampling occurred in June–August 2001 (pre-treatment) and in June–September of 2002 and 2003 and June–August 2004.

    (Summarised by: Nick Littlewood)

  2. Use prescribed burning

    A replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after study in 2001–2004 of a coniferous woodland in California, USA (Monroe & Converse 2006) found that prescribed fire did not increase the abundance of small mammals. Deer mouse Peromyscus maniculatus abundance was not significantly higher on burned than on unburned plots (results presented as modelled effect size). Similarly, lodgepole chipmunk Neotamias speciosus abundance and total small mammal biomass were not significantly higher in burned than in unburned plots. Nine plots, 15–20 ha in area, were studied. Three were burned between 28 September and 28 October 2001 and three were burned on 20 or 27 June 2002. Three plots were not burned. Treatments were allocated randomly to plots. Small mammals were sampled by live-trapping over eight consecutive nights and days each year. Sampling occurred in June–August 2001 (pre-treatment) and in June–September of 2002 and 2003 and June–August 2004.

    (Summarised by: Nick Littlewood)

Output references
What Works 2021 cover

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation provides expert assessments of the effectiveness of actions, based on summarised evidence, in synopses. Subjects covered so far include amphibians, birds, mammals, forests, peatland and control of freshwater invasive species. More are in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
The Conservation Evidence Journal

The Conservation Evidence Journal

An online, free to publish in, open-access journal publishing results from research and projects that test the effectiveness of conservation actions.

Read the latest volume: Volume 18

Go to the CE Journal

Discover more on our blog

Our blog contains the latest news and updates from the Conservation Evidence team, the Conservation Evidence Journal, and our global partners in evidence-based conservation.


Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape Programme Red List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Bern wood Supporting Conservation Leaders National Biodiversity Network Sustainability Dashboard Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx British trust for ornithology Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Butterfly Conservation People trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust